It is entirely on topic; we're talking about the legitimacy of this "imminent threat" that people are using to justify the need to interpret the 2nd amendment in a way that was more appropriate for times when bloodletting was condsidered a useful medical practice. If you cant see that, you need help that cannot be delivered via a discussion forum.

Way too many times lately, people have maturely tolerated such lame attempts to distract by those who can no longer support their own argument (ie: those who ask me questions out of left field such as "what is a flash suppressor", and when I patiently humor them and answer it, I'm told my responses are going all over the place; or people refusing to answer a simple question in the pumping up liberalism thread, when they were the ones who injected "blasphemy" in the discussion in the first place) I'm happy to have a discussion, but my appetite to enable those to play that game has been exhausted. I'd go work in a daycare if I was interested in that.

Trying one more time--What exactly do you want me to do differently and how exactly will that change fix anything?